On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:25:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > severity 457151 wishlist > thanks > > Relying in the installation order of packages to get the right behaviour > is asking for troubles. > > If you do not want a specific package as alternative, remove it from the > alternative and/or build-conflict on it. It's as simple as that.
Right. I wanted to know whether there is a way to avoid this behaviour. Thank you for the clarification. > > As this has caused enough damage already (e.g. octave2.9, numpy etc.) > > not unnecessarily depend on atlas. Therefore, I chose to file this as > > serious. Please feel free to downgrade severity if you feel so. > > It's certainly not serious. > > Though while I care that "Depends" on binary package are reordered, I care > less of Build-Depends and I have no problem if this patch is applied. > > But I really don't like the justification of the revert, thus I'm inclined > to not revert it and close the bug. But I'd like to have the opinions of > other dpkg developers first. Fine by me. But do you think this calls for a bug against those packages which unnecessarily depend on atlas due to this change? I can file wishlists against those, and they surely should not need atlas, as they have been without it earlier. Thanks, and sorry for the false alarm! :-) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
